- Joined
- Aug 25, 2006
- Messages
- 1,510
- Reaction score
- 707
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Neither party seemed to care about spending until recently. I'd agree that the Republicans probably drew attention to the issue first, but now the Democrats have gone further with it than the Republicans are willing to go.
That said, not passing a budget doesn't mean spending increases, it means it stays the same. Passing a budget those years could very well have meant more spending.
Maybe you misunderstand that quote. He's not saying you shouldn't raise the debt ceiling, he is saying that you shouldn't spend so much that you have to raise it. Certainly he has always opposed defaulting on the debt.
The uproar over current government spending started in 2009 with the Tea Party and extended to the 2010 election where the movement won major gains in the House. Just like the current uproar over money in politics began with the OWS movement. Not passing a budget means no accountability or plan for current or future spending. It does not mean spending stays the same, legislation is passed and spending is incurred without any plan to account for. The federal government will spend to their limit no matter what, passing a budget at least allows for a goalpost to be set.
Maybe you should take your wingnut goggles off. He explicitly says he will be voting against the debt ceiling increase.
Saying that you shouldn't spend so much that you have to raise it is exactly what Republicans in the house are saying. The House was fully intent on raising the debt ceiling as long as it was accompanied by spending cuts. That's how the deal got done in the end.
You honestly believe that. You actually believe that a bill passed a few years ago with services that wont even kick in for another few years, with an uncertain benefit to unknown participants...in the hands of the fed...is going to reduce the deficit and cut costs. Thats hilarious. Well...no...sad...tragic...it pretty much explains why the nation is in such a financial hole...but...still...a LITTLE funny. Whats the OP again? Whats the debt ceiling at?I'm going to assume that you are fully aware that the health care reform package actually reduces the deficit and that you're just playing like you didn't know that for dramatic effect....
You honestly believe that. You actually believe that a bill passed a few years ago with services that wont even kick in for another few years, with an uncertain benefit to unknown participants...in the hands of the fed...is going to reduce the deficit and cut costs.
A continuing resolution is basically the same thing as a budget. It just takes the numbers from the previous budget and keeps them the same, maybe with an increase for inflation. Whether there is a budget in place or a continuing resolution, the Congress is still always free to pass additional spending increases or reductions as they see fit. Passing a budget doesn't change that at all.
And sweet irony is to be had by all. By definition, Obama is admitting his own failure here.Hmm, that is true that he voted against raising it. But the failure of leadership he is talking about is the spending, not the paying of the debt.
Why not address it with compromise legislation instead of resorting the threatening to destroy the economy to try to get their way? The hostage situation approach cost us many billions because it forced the credit rating to be dropped. The Republicans have turned down two different $3 trillion deficit reduction plans the Democrats have proposed now, so the claim that they need to threaten to blow up the country to get the Democrats to the negotiating table is obviously false, right? They're the ones refusing to negotiate.
Hows Medicare doing? Social Security?Of course it will. It includes new taxes that more than cover the costs even without the public option. The public option would have been the big cost saver, but that didn't pass. So we're covering the costs with taxes. You were aware of that, no?
Of course it will. It includes new taxes that more than cover the costs even without the public option. The public option would have been the big cost saver, but that didn't pass. So we're covering the costs with taxes. You were aware of that, no?
Right and the continuing resolutions passed held zero reductions in federal spending until Republicans took the House in 2011. If Congress wants to pass additional spending increases over the federal budget they have to pass new appropriations legislation. Harry Reid and the Democratic Senate have refused to pass a budget and voted down all House proposals for a budget because it is politically profitable for them to do so. Harry Reid has come out and publicly said he has no interest in passing a Democratic budget. There's no way even you can dismiss that irresponsibility.
The whole point of the process was to introduce compromise legislation. By not rubber-stamping the debt ceiling increase, budget negotiations began. Do you really think the issue would have been debated seriously if there wasn't political leverage to do so?
Feeding the organism lowers debt? Does the wealth it takes and gives back also a positive return?
Seriously, you know that is a dream.
That's what happens when you promise to pay and you can't pay... you default. That's reality - it's time we had a dose of it.Er what? No... As I keep saying over and over, we only have one viable choice for reducing spending- by actually reducing spending. Just refusing to pay for stuff we spent just makes things worse. Owing creditors $2 trillion for bonds or whatever is much better than owing the same creditors $2 trillion that you just refuse to pay.
You keep using the word "randomize"... there's nothing random about it. it's very focused actually - especially the examples I provided.Yeah that's right. So just trying to handicap Congress's ability to act doesn't reduce government or reduce spending, it just randomizes it. Reductions in some places, increases in others, at random.
That's what happens when you promise to pay and you can't pay... you default. That's reality - it's time we had a dose of it.
You keep using the word "randomize"... there's nothing random about it. it's very focused actually - especially the examples I provided.
Only if the Fed prints more money. Otherwise, we cannot pay.We can pay.
How did you get that I "acknowledged" any of your ideas in what I said? :lamo No I didn't acknowledge it - in fact, I disagreed and said there was nothing random about it. I know you don't get it... it sounds like you won't get it either, which is a shame.So you acknowledge that it would just mean increasing spending in some areas and decreasing it in others, with no decision making to determine which would be which, but you don't think that's randomization? I don't get it. Just flipping a coin would do that same thing.
Huh? Of course. Deficit = spending - revenue.
To try to paint it as though Democrats are and have been trying to spend like crazy while Republicans have always been trying to reel it in is obviously not an accurate description, right? Bush2 was in the whitehouse while the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress for 6 years. They used that time to turn the surplus and booming economy they got from Clinton into a massive deficit and economic collapse. Even now the Republicans refuse to accept the largest deficit reduction proposals which are consistently coming from Democrats, not Republicans.
Whichever party doesn't have the white house likes to use slogans about how the opposite party president is spending too much, but that isn't the reality. The reality is that Congress, not the president, decides how much to spend and both parties tend to make the calculation that they would lose more votes by cutting programs people like than they would by doing nothing.
Why not just accept the Democrat's massive deficit reduction proposals instead of rejecting those, then threatening to destroy the economy in order to get their own preferred, smaller, deficit reduction proposals through? IMO it's just posturing. They're looking to get soundbites they can put in their ads that make it sound like they're being tough on the deficit and the Democrats are trying to spend like crazy.
Only if the Fed prints more money. Otherwise, we cannot pay.
How did you get that I "acknowledged" any of your ideas in what I said? :lamo No I didn't acknowledge it - in fact, I disagreed and said there was nothing random about it. I know you don't get it... it sounds like you won't get it either, which is a shame.
Is a living organism going to cut of its own head when you feed it more?
Ahh "stave the beast" eh? Look around man. Does it seem to you like that is working? Does spending go down when revenues do?
So by that logic, the Democrats are 100% responsible for the Federal Budget from 2006-2010
and the resulting economic collapse
To absolve Obama of all spending decisions is both dishonest and naive.
Why not just accept the Republican's massive deficit reduction proposals instead of rejecting those, then threatening to destroy the economy in order to get their own preferred, smaller, deficit reduction proposals through?
Borrowing from who - at what % interest rate which will be paid from where? It's not just something right wingers say - it's MATH.That's just one of those things right wingers say. It doesn't mean anything. It's borrowing, not creating, money.
That's the funny thing I already have explained it but you're not getting it. I urge you to go back and read it again and then repeat as many times as necessary but I'm not going to repeat myself especially since it's more about you not WANTING to understand ... rather than an inability on your part. I can't you think... :shrug:Feel free to explain your argument if you have one. There doesn't seem to be anything planned or rational about an approach that just results in cuts in some areas and increases in others basically at random.
That's just one of those things right wingers say. It doesn't mean anything. It's borrowing, not creating, money.
Obviously not. Government will spend as much money as it is allowed to do so. It does lead to unpopular deficits, however, and politicians become more focused on how to fix them. Look no further than the bipartisan position of reducing federal spending.
What's the right winger talking point? That we print money? Please tell me you aren't serious.
How is borrowing money "printing money"...
Printing money is printing money... is this a trick question?
Ahh "stave the beast" eh? Look around man. Does it seem to you like that is working? Does spending go down when revenues do?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?